I think, though, you are making too much of this Johns Hopkins thing - they are a D-3 school and are ONLY a Lacrosse affiliate member.Not sure how their contract reads but the B1G may have a provision to kick them out (not renew their affiliationn) after so many years, if and when the B1G has 6 or more lacrosse-playing members within the B1G member schools.(But I speculate on that....) I do think it might have made more sense for JHU to become a Lacrosse affiliate of the ACC.... way less travel !!!

I think JHU wanted the ACC. The ACC just wouldn't play ball with that kind of "affiliate" (although Notre Dame is fine?). JHU made it clear they sought the ACC out when they decided to join the Big Ten, and from what Johns Hopkins demanded when it first went on this quest for a conference home, JHU had the eject clause and they wouldn't relinquish their media deal.

From the point of leverage, JHU's got it over the Big Ten until the B1G finds another affiliate or one of their own institutions sponsors lacrosse and doesn't need JHU for the AQ, which JHU is providing.

I think it's a big deal going in on Johns Hopkins. The move itself showed no internal member was close enough to D1 sponsorship in the next 3-5 years (so, how good is that B1G money, anyway?), and who knows if this was yet another concession to appease Maryland. The Big Ten could have gotten AQ with anyone at the D1 level. Yes, JHU was the best candidate that happened to fit certain metrics, but one thing JHU didn't do...push the footprint. Bellarmine would have. Air Force or Denver would have. But, the biggest deal about JHU and the Big Ten...that the Big Ten made the kind of concessions (above, as well as going into the realm of affiliate membership) just for lacrosse?

It may be nothing. Probably will be nothing if certain schools don't go straight to their state representatives and kvetch to high heaven. But, the Big Ten cracked on #12-14.5/15. The sheen of their perceived might has a few smudges.

Quote:

The whole deal about the B1G holding up all their strategic moves to be jerked around by Notre Dame seemed ridiculous.Delany is such a Macchiavellian rip-your-heart-out businessman, how could he go so long letting ND jerk him around.... MOVE ON !!!!I think Notre dame must enjoy jerking the Big Ten around in some perverse way.

Considering how Notre Dame handled it back in the 90's, yes...it is embarrassing for the Big Ten. The Big Ten put Penn State on ice for a year because PSU leaked their discussions. Supposedly, the Big Ten didn't take to kindly to Nebraska trying to push the tempo in 2009, either. But, for Notre Dame after the '99 thing? They aired their laundry AND never put the matter to a vote. There should NEVER have been a discussion thereafter. Let them rot on the vine.

The old BE, the B1G, PAC12 schools, now the ACC, the B12, have all courted, accommodated and/or enabled Notre Dame in ways that would never be done for any other school. Even the SEC went along with giving Notre Dame a direct seat at the BCS table with special criteria. All this has carried over into discussions and set-ups' for the new playoffs and the movement toward a super-division. Engaging and associating with Notre Dame is all about projected prestige, money, and the pressures from media, bowls, and sponsors. Their approach has historically been to extend Notre Dame yummy carrots in exchange for empty promises and assumed entitlements on the part of Notre Dame.

These schools need to deal with Notre Dame as no more than an individual and institutional peer and not a conference unto themselves. Accepting Notre Dame without a complete football commitment into a conference, is sending the firm message that they are perceived to be too superior for fb in the conference. A conference that seeks that, values that, and accepts that, above somebody that would give their all, speaks to the motives and character of that conference. And it is all based on hope and flawed expectations they'll be rewarded for it.

Sou. Cal and Stanford value annual games with Notre Dame over letting the PAC12 have a scheduling agreement with the B1G. The ACC thinks their 5 rotating games with Notre Dame was coup d'état while ND's brass are giggling and making deposits. The enabling mindset is based on a number of intangibles.

These conferences and schools need not be overtly lusting for Notre Dame, nor set out to punish them when there are other enablers eager to accommodate. Rather, they need to end the special favors, and when there is collective conference decision-making, Notre Dame is excluded because they are not a conference unto themselves nor any conference member in fb. The ACC's Swofford can address Notre Dame's interests in forums, and not as a complementary representative to Swarbrick sitting directly there.

If a school/conference cannot come to terms in deciding not to schedule Notre Dame due to grander implications rather than punishment, then nothing with Notre Dame is going to substantively change.

Steve Spurrier got the picture. The SEC has informally questioned why is Notre Dame sitting at the commissioners' table. Now make it formal and act on it.

Rather, they need to end the special favors, and when there is collective conference decision-making, Notre Dame is excluded because they are not a conference unto themselves nor any conference member in fb.

This may be the most respectable thing the C7/Big East did after the split. Notre Dame wanted to join up with them for a year and suck off with that gang, with Fox apparently eager to oblige, and the group told the Irish where they could shove it.

Considering how much any of those C7 schools would kill to be in the ACC (we know Villanova and a few of the others applied), what gall of the Irish to even ask.

Let the ACC figure this out for themselves. The whole "Notre Dame and the ACC" bull. When Notre Dame steals bowl bids away from other programs because of their name...it's going to happen more often than those guys think.

Good find, TBC. That's an interesting post given it comes from a BTN writer. Good comment too, tute79.

See the comments section also. Those ND fans are quick to play victim, slam the writer, twist the scenario, and demand entitlement.

Agree with the writer. The B1G needs to move-on in their scheduling. Find OOC power-games elsewhere.

Notre Dame has been trying to schedule future fb games with Georgia. That 'complications' comment has to apply, in part, to attempts to schedule with Georgia and/or Florida on ND's terms. Somebody may have told Swarbrick and Kelly 'that's not the way it works down here'. Notre Dame wants access to more of one's top recruits and decide when and where to play the games with the revenue favoring ND.

If Georgia needs dates to fill, which I highly doubt, play Clemson more often from 'up the road, over the line and across the river'. That's an assured sell-out of mid-80s'k+ at either stadium.

Mississippi State, Ole Miss, maybe others such as LSU, Auburn, Alabama, and Arkansas, will need to schedule that required OOC power-game on a regular basis. But playing in the less lustful and heat of Starkville or Oxford and very tight recruiting grounds, on home-to-home terms, won't be so delightful, would it, Swarbrick?

The ACC should be 'p'ed off' about this. The ACC is only getting 5 games with ND in the agreement, and yet ND aggressively (speaking through the media) seeks to hook-up games with SEC schools in a couple of states that the ACC has shared footprints with the SEC. How about increasing that number to 6 or more ACC schools, ND, if you have dates to fill?

Notre Dame declares they want to recruit nationally. Who doesn't? Why is such a privilege suppose to be unique and sympathetic to Notre Dame? I am sure Purdue would welcome eligible top recruits from California, Georgia, Florida, and Texas also.----------------------------Here's something related to ND's spoken desire to schedule with the SEC:

Dienhart held back on really laying it on the ACC. 5 football games was not the price ND had to pay, given the ACC also gave them bowl access and allowed the Irish to pick the dates. The Irish also got to park their ollies there a year before the football commitments.

ACC schools should be pissed at the ACC commissioner. The ACC, once again, gave way too much away at the table. I bet ND could have gotten away with 4 games if bowl games were off the table, or the dates.

I think it's bad for the game to not see Notre Dame and Big Ten football games, and Dienhart's one to talk about tradition and flexibility, but I think he's right about the Big Ten's need for Notre Dame games. The Big Ten doesn't need to be seen any more than it does in the midwest...but Notre Dame does.

ACC schools should be pissed at the ACC commissioner. The ACC, once again, gave way too much away at the table. I bet ND could have gotten away with 4 games if bowl games were off the table, or the dates.

Of course. At the time, Deloss Dodd supposedly had been in discussions with his friend, ND AD Swarbrick, for some partial deal with the depleted B12. ND could have been playing one against the other with Swofford focused on out-doing the B12 for the honor of ND partial membership. I don't know this for certain, but the B12 could have insisted on a future date for a 'complete' transition or had a termination date for the partial deal. Nevertheless, the ACC had more of the abundance of schools and region that was attractive for ND. Plus given the incentives offered by the ACC, ND got all they wanted.

The old Big East got engulfed in divided interests, appeasements, favoritism, and cloudy arrangements that ultimately led to its demise. Swofford already had the foundation for such and is leading in expanding it. A simple example among others: a Coastal Division inclusive of the most favored. There's a reason for a rebellion to have a petition for the 'two best' as representatives for the CCG.

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

I think it's bad for the game to not see Notre Dame and Big Ten football games, and Dienhart's one to talk about tradition and flexibility, but I think he's right about the Big Ten's need for Notre Dame games. The Big Ten doesn't need to be seen any more than it does in the midwest...but Notre Dame does.

I am wondering when is the point that certain major conferences shall say to certain members with some meat to it, that accommodating or enabling one independent with scheduling, is detracting from our overall bottom line in the global scheme of revenue disbursements. And further, that an institution outside our body is being granted a comparative edge in terms of recruitment, media attention, bowl placements, and influencing governing and playoff policies.

ALL the major conferences certainly had no problem in giving BYU the exclusionary treatment. But not only do they include Notre Dame, they grant them added and special privileges, by organization, by conference, and by individual members.

I am wondering when is the point that certain major conferences shall say to certain members with some meat to it, that accommodating or enabling one independent with scheduling, is detracting from our overall bottom line in the global scheme of revenue disbursements. And further, that an institution outside our body is being granted a comparative edge in terms of recruitment, media attention, bowl placements, and influencing governing and playoff policies.

ALL the major conferences certainly had no problem in giving BYU the exclusionary treatment. But not only do they include Notre Dame, they grant them added and special privileges, by organization, by conference, and by individual members.

It's an interesting thought. It's full-blown collectivism versus flexible autonomy. In the case of Notre Dame, I think you had the right mixture of individual programs and, more importantly, broadcaster and bowl venue dollars backing the Irish into this. Hate the Irish as much as some might, it can't be said that when they're good enough, eyes and dollars follow.

The thing about this piece is, if this is how the Big Ten feels, which I think it reflects the majority of the Big Ten but not the entirety, it should be coming from Delany. He's the guy who could have made Notre Dame and the ACC's life very...frustrating.

It is believed that Swofford and the ACC thought the deal with Notre Dame was a wonderful decision for the ACC. I expect much of the ACC still thinks that. At the time, Maryland was still officially there, but still the ACC was edgy about expansion from elsewhere in the context of their own perception of feeling secure. That may have influenced the ACC with being so accommodating with Notre Dame. Remember, the ACC was once having that all-sports stance as to Notre Dame.As others have indicated in upward posts, what the ACC really hopes for is that Notre Dame will end up joining as a full member. That is the ACC's real weakness with this. In the negotiated terms for Notre' Dame inclusion, the ACC failed to define a path whereby Notre Dame would ultimately become a full member. Notre Dame would have resisted the thought even if the ACC really tried, and Notre Dame would had assumed at the get-go that the ACC's highest objective would be to have Notre Dame included completely in football. Void of any clause in the agreement to have the inclusion status reassessed at a future point, Notre Dame can treat the agreement as permanent or as long as they feel the need to have it. With the bowl deals included along with Notre Dame's flex scheduling, agree again, it is largely one-sided.Per the B1G, agree that Delany should be the public mouthpiece on the direction the conference is heading in scheduling and how that will impact relationships with Notre Dame as well as others. He is the guy to set the tone, not necessarily outsource it to his network writers because some others will be unhappy about it or he sees a need to maintain a particular image on this matter. Mr. Delany does not have to be negative in referencing Notre Dame, just express this is a natural outcome as the conference has been moving in a new direction as to scheduling and marketing in adapting for a changing era. He certainly can point to the ACC in making his logistical points in an analytical rather than a reactionary fashion. I further agree that most B1G schools are fine with moving away from involvement with Notre Dame, but there are those two or so schools that just do not want to let go of common scheduling with Notre Dame. This may be where Delany is reluctant to be publically direct. If the lack of firmness still has to do with any residual hope Notre Dame will one day join the B1G, it's the same impediment and the wrong tactic. Delany has been outspoken, assertive, and confrontational when he needs or desires to do so. Notre Dame just holds so much hostage. Most of it looks mental. The B1G can show the ACC their power, but when it comes to dealing with Notre Dame directly, they just can't abandon that ole fear factor.

The B1G can show the ACC their power, but when it comes to dealing with Notre Dame directly, they just can't abandon that ole fear factor.

I honestly would like to know who keeps chasing after the Irish within the B1G offices. Is it Delany himself? Is Notre Dame his white whale? Or is this a cluster of schools? How many schools? Which schools?

The leverage is on the Big Ten's side, even if their scheduling rigidity doesn't make it overwhelming. Notre Dame is pushing the tradition bit. But...it's their tradition. And it's only valuable when it's favorable to them. In the last year or so, two games (Purdue and Michigan State) who were virtual mainstays on that schedule came off, while another great rivalry with Michigan also saw another end. Michigan-ND is a game that can be sacrificed...but the idea of Purdue and Michigan State...it's just wrong. Especially because those two come off for Stanford. Or that Notre Dame expected those two schools to deal with near 2-1's with that Shamrock Series extortion.

It won't mean anything. If things sour between Notre Dame and the ACC, the anti-Catholic Fielding Yost crap will come up yet again if the urges for Big Ten admission reemerge. All of the Notre Dame initiated rivalry cuts will be forgotten or spun to paint the Irish as innocent and persecuted. Oh well...to everyone else outside of South Bend and ND-logo t-shirts, that's ND's only real legacy: hypocrisy.

I think, though, you are making too much of this Johns Hopkins thing - they are a D-3 school and are ONLY a Lacrosse affiliate member.Not sure how their contract reads but the B1G may have a provision to kick them out (not renew their affiliationn) after so many years, if and when the B1G has 6 or more lacrosse-playing members within the B1G member schools.(But I speculate on that....) I do think it might have made more sense for JHU to become a Lacrosse affiliate of the ACC.... way less travel !!!

I think JHU wanted the ACC. The ACC just wouldn't play ball with that kind of "affiliate" (although Notre Dame is fine?). JHU made it clear they sought the ACC out when they decided to join the Big Ten, and from what Johns Hopkins demanded when it first went on this quest for a conference home, JHU had the eject clause and they wouldn't relinquish their media deal.

From the point of leverage, JHU's got it over the Big Ten until the B1G finds another affiliate or one of their own institutions sponsors lacrosse and doesn't need JHU for the AQ, which JHU is providing.

I think it's a big deal going in on Johns Hopkins. The move itself showed no internal member was close enough to D1 sponsorship in the next 3-5 years (so, how good is that B1G money, anyway?), and who knows if this was yet another concession to appease Maryland. The Big Ten could have gotten AQ with anyone at the D1 level. Yes, JHU was the best candidate that happened to fit certain metrics, but one thing JHU didn't do...push the footprint. Bellarmine would have. Air Force or Denver would have. But, the biggest deal about JHU and the Big Ten...that the Big Ten made the kind of concessions (above, as well as going into the realm of affiliate membership) just for lacrosse?

It may be nothing. Probably will be nothing if certain schools don't go straight to their state representatives and kvetch to high heaven. But, the Big Ten cracked on #12-14.5/15. The sheen of their perceived might has a few smudges.

Quote:

The whole deal about the B1G holding up all their strategic moves to be jerked around by Notre Dame seemed ridiculous.Delany is such a Macchiavellian rip-your-heart-out businessman, how could he go so long letting ND jerk him around.... MOVE ON !!!!I think Notre dame must enjoy jerking the Big Ten around in some perverse way.

Considering how Notre Dame handled it back in the 90's, yes...it is embarrassing for the Big Ten. The Big Ten put Penn State on ice for a year because PSU leaked their discussions. Supposedly, the Big Ten didn't take to kindly to Nebraska trying to push the tempo in 2009, either. But, for Notre Dame after the '99 thing? They aired their laundry AND never put the matter to a vote. There should NEVER have been a discussion thereafter. Let them rot on the vine.

I am just wondering, but do you think the SEC goes along with the whole Notre Dame circus because it detracts from the Big 10. For the past 10 years or so, I would say the SEC has successfully tried to replace the Big 10 as the top athletic conference. If Notre Dame were to be forced to join a conference and they sided with the Big 10, would that have put the Big 10 ahead of the SEC in perception? The SEC knows that Notre Dame will never join their league. But if they don't join one of the other Big 5 doesn't that sort of benefit the SEC? I'm not saying I agree with letting Notre Dame have their seat at the conference commissioners table, but if Notre Dame in the Big 10 makes the Big 10 the top dog, then maybe giving Notre Dame more leeway is in the best interest of the SEC. Mike Slive is no fool. Hypothetically, if Texas were an independent and we (I am a diehard SEC fan) wanted to stay ahead of the Big 12, and the Big 12 were actively recruiting Texas, wouldn't giving Texas a pass actually benefit the SEC, even if the SEC knew there was no chance of Texas ever actually joining the SEC (sorry for the run on sentence, the beer is getting to me).

I am just wondering, but do you think the SEC goes along with the whole Notre Dame circus because it detracts from the Big 10. For the past 10 years or so, I would say the SEC has successfully tried to replace the Big 10 as the top athletic conference. If Notre Dame were to be forced to join a conference and they sided with the Big 10, would that have put the Big 10 ahead of the SEC in perception? The SEC knows that Notre Dame will never join their league. But if they don't join one of the other Big 5 doesn't that sort of benefit the SEC? I'm not saying I agree with letting Notre Dame have their seat at the conference commissioners table, but if Notre Dame in the Big 10 makes the Big 10 the top dog, then maybe giving Notre Dame more leeway is in the best interest of the SEC. Mike Slive is no fool. Hypothetically, if Texas were an independent and we (I am a diehard SEC fan) wanted to stay ahead of the Big 12, and the Big 12 were actively recruiting Texas, wouldn't giving Texas a pass actually benefit the SEC, even if the SEC knew there was no chance of Texas ever actually joining the SEC (sorry for the run on sentence, the beer is getting to me).

I think there's a good chance another ACC school or two peel off from the body because of the revenue stream and ND favoritism, but I don't think those programs who bolt go to the SEC. It might make sense on paper for the SEC to want ND in this "separate but equal" position, but more because conferences like the ACC (including ND) and SEC don't want what the Big Ten is trying to jam onto the FBS/P5 body: anti-FCS, nine conference games, bowls/+1 championship determination, the seven home game guarantee (and its effects on scheduling, travel, etc.), and other initiatives (player compensation, scholarships, the thirteenth game, etc.).

If Notre Dame did eventually join the ACC, I don't think the ACC would adopt a more Big Ten-like stance on some of these subjects. What made the ACC so attractive, as well as the Big XII, was the autonomy that the institutions had, rather than the conference-first mindset. And the SEC is with the ACC in that fight (as well as the Big XII). That, I think, is the bigger fight.

I think that in order for the Big Ten to get its Irish prize, it means the Big Ten institutions get more autonomy than being led by their commissioner. It means institutions making a certain conference, rather than a conference of certain institutions. The SEC, ACC, and Big XII are definitely more the former, and the B1G and PAC definitely the latter. Likelihood of that happening? Never during Delany's watch.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum